Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-91-766)
Facts:
Jose P. Uy and Rizalina C. Uy v. Hon. Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, A.M. No. RTJ-91-766, April 07, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam, writing for the Court.
On 15 November 1991 the spouses Jose P. Uy and Rizalina C. Uy filed a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator charging Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela, with gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, and grave misconduct in connection with Special Proceedings No. 335‑V‑88 (settlement of the estate of the late Ambrocio C. Pingco).
The antecedent events began on 21 November 1988 when Herminia R. Alvos filed a petition for settlement of the estate of Ambrocio C. Pingco; on 23 November 1988 respondent Judge appointed Alvos special administratrix under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. In March 1989 counsel for the special administratrix informed the court that a deed of absolute sale (dated 9 December 1978) had been filed with the Register of Deeds on 3 February 1989, transferring several parcels to the Uys, and sought a “freeze” on further transactions; respondent Judge granted the motion on 29 March 1989. A Register of Deeds report (18 April 1989) confirmed that new Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) had been issued in the Uys’ names for several parcels.
On 5 May 1989 counsel for the special administratrix moved to cancel the Uys’ titles alleging fraud/forgery. Respondent Judge ordered cancellation and reinstatement of titles to Ambrocio C. Pingco and Paz Ramirez on 7 June 1989. Complainant Jose Uy brought a petition to the Court of Appeals (3 July 1989) to annul that order and sought a temporary restraining order; meanwhile the Register of Deeds of Valenzuela implemented the cancellation.
On 28 September 1989 the Court of Appeals granted the Uys’ petition, set aside the 7 June 1989 order and enjoined respondent Judge from proceeding against Jose Uy, and denied reconsideration on 15 November 1989. Alvos filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 91092) on 28 December 1989. Despite these appellate rulings, respondent Judge proceeded with further acts in the probate case: she approved a project of partition (reported as acted on 6 February 1990), ordered registers of deeds to cancel/reissue titles per that partition (order of 16 January 1991), and on 4 February 1991, 2 April 1991 and 29 April 1991 granted ex parte petitions approving deeds of sale and directing the issuance of new titles in favor of third parties — actions that directly affected properties previously titled in the Uys' names.
This Court, in G.R. No. 91092, affirmed the Court of Appeals on 8 March 1991, holding that probate courts lack authority to determine ownership and that cancellation of Torrens titles cannot be obtained in probate by mere motion. No...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Teresita Dizon‑Capulong commit gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the judicial service by cancelling Torrens titles and approving transfers in the probate proceedings despite appellate rulings to the contrary?
- If guilty, what disciplinary p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)